Ars gratia artis.....

[Artoo]

Continuing here from the 'global warming' thread:

Originally posted by Eleana
I daresay is no non-based funding in the US. In many states of Europe there was as the resaerch at the UNI's were not commercially funded. [/b]

It may not have been funded directly by commercial interests but it's _always_ been necessary for European academics to compete for research funding.

Only research students have the luxury of simply getting on with the work without considering the budget - and, while money is obviously not the driving force to a research student - I don't know anyone who's done, or could do, three years with no salary or grant.

There's a saying in the theatre: "Art for art's sake, money for god's sake". 'Twas ever thus! The disappointing trend nowadays is that it's now almost impossible to get government money without commercial involvement.

[Eleana]

hm. Well at least the German universities could work without caring for funding for a long time. All was paid by the taxpayers. In the eighties some universities were looking for industrial cooperations for they got the feel they were doing research for the research's sake. It was the time American universities' reseachers were thriving on the idea their research could be put to good use.

The best way to perfectly corrupt what was good before.

Was it truly? For centuries German research was done exemplarily. Unfortunately Hitler started to abuse research and researches and consequently did the allies. We all know the utter outcome.

Again I feel we need to be careful not to confiese science with application engineering.

Glad I found the thread and some folks willing to particpate in the discussion around the heavy subject.

[Artoo]

Originally posted by Eleana
Again I feel we need to be careful not to confiese science with application engineering. [/b]

Indeed so. You might be amused by the first section of lectures I gave to our 1st year students:

http://www.mech.gla.ac.uk/~rthomson/...notes/ch01.htm

(apologies if I posted this earlier - memory isn't what it used to be)

[Eleana]

I loved it! Sorry took me so long to answer but I was travelling.

Am I right in the assumptions those were NOT first graders?



Years ago, to study Philosophy was part of becoming a scientist. It took me a while to understand why. Maybe because both fileds share a way of thinking and a way of approaching problems.

Is Philosophy biased as well?

[Artoo]

Originally posted by Eleana I loved it! Sorry took me so long to answer but I was travelling.

Am I right in the assumptions those were NOT first graders?

Thanks! The lectures were delivered to first year University engineers - I felt it was important to get them to think, for example, about whether they should be building nuclear reactors before going on to show them how to do so.

Years ago, to study Philosophy was part of becoming a scientist. It took me a while to understand why. Maybe because both fileds share a way of thinking and a way of approaching problems.

In fact, I'd say that philosophy has always been a science insofar as one has to apply logic and critical thinking to a problem. And in modern times, both require experimental evidence in support of their theories. That's probably the biggest change since the ancient Greeks.

Is Philosophy biased as well?

Yes, in the sense that the very choice of what to study reflects personal interests and/or available funds. Such bias is inevitable and doesn't make for bad science. Bad science results when a researcher falsifies evidence to support a preconceived conclusion.

[Eleana]

I think we are closing in on our original questio whether science per se is biased or not.

Any fraudulent act carries bias, of course. Falsifying or oppressing results is part of the human desire to gain attention or profit under any circumstances. Let me take these actions out of the equation.

What drives us to science? The desire to gain attention, profit or recognition alone?

Curiosity is an important factor in the survival strategy of life. If animals were not curious and eager to explore, most of the species were becoming extinct a long time ago. For instance herbivores would be scared to death all time of new things. Instead the curiosity lets them investigate and categorize the new thing into dangerous or not.

- admittedly things ca go wrong -

Would you call this curiosity biased?

[Artoo]

Would you call this curiosity biased?

While you may be curious about almost everything, you only have threescore years and ten. That limits what you can achieve in a lifetime. So you elect to do some things in preference to others. That automatically induces bias.